Red Light Cameras work too well

Great info.. thanks

flip

It's all about the money for local government

Yes, thanks, very interesting article!

SOOOO it isn't about safety. What a surprise.

the same thing will happen in Arizona where they are putting speed cameras all over the states highways to try and balence the budget !

Interesting

http://www.abc15.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=6a0f80...

The cameras are doing their job. Anti-Red light camera wannabe rebels at least have some sort of argument stating fast light times and drivers behind them tailgating. Anyone suggesting speed cameras should be removed simply just want to drive faster and deserve more tickets.

Nice article. Here in Phx they say it's not about the money, but the saftey. Just goes to show you it is about the money....

If they really wanted to reduce accidents, and it wasn't about the money. They could add an all red time (a time when signals in all directions are red). That would give the intersection a time to clear before the next directions got the green.

It seems counter intuitive, but having all 4 lights be red for some period of time (more than 2 seconds) actually increases the number of mid intersection collisions. You have those that say "That light's red in all directions, I'll step on it and get through." and those thinking "That light's red in all directions, I'll get started early because I'm late."

I don't consider my self a Anti-Red light camera wannabe rebel, however I do have to ask you,did you read the whole article? In case not here it is again:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23710970

In case you don't want to read it, here is the meat!

At the heart of the discussions taking place in city councils and county commissions is tension between the twin benefits that were touted when local governments began installing cameras about a decade and a half ago. Officials were promised that the cameras — which take snapshots of busy intersections, capturing the license plates of any cars that are running the light — would simultaneously save lives and generate millions of dollars in extra fines.
The first half of that equation is arguably true: A federal study found a small but measurable reduction in injuries nationwide in accidents at intersections monitored by cameras, though there was an increase in some kinds of collisions.
It is the second half of the equation that may be beginning to collapse. As drivers learn where the cameras are, they are more careful. Fewer of them run red lights. Local governments collect fewer fines.
Fewer violations = less revenue
"And that has nothing to do with safety."

Bob

that a city, whose sole interest is in saving our lives, is disappointed that their cameras are working, so they are turning some of them off?

I know everyone will agree with me, that such positive behavior like this is why we should all want government as large as possible and in total control of our entire daily life. /sarcasm

The question is did you read mine? I quoted the person talking about speed cameras and responded to them. The article I posted was about the freeway cameras slowing down the traffic. I simply stated how the anti red light camera people have a small argument but anyone who is against speed cameras just wants to speed.

Great article, thanks

Could this be a double edge sword for them? By turning them off, if someone were to get into an accident at that location it seams that the city could be held responsible for not using them as a safety control device to try to avoid an accident as what they were originally installed for.

These thing are stupid. Where I'm at they are like 90 a pop and cant even prove who did it in the car.

Follow the link……

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=019_1232690422

Then you make the call, Money or Safety.

Joemac

This is great! I hope everyone stops running red lights, so they have to pull them all out of the ground and put these companies out of business.

What an interesting concept.

Just like the article says... it's all in how you want to interpret it. 1. so rear end collisions may have increased, but they don't address the severity of the rear end collisions compared to the severity of the t-bone type collisons that have decreased (net of 5% decrease according to the article). My observations over the past 20 years is that t-bone type crashes are generally more severe than rear-end collisons (just a first hand observation.)

2. There is a lesson to be learned for governments. Don't rely on the revenue from the devices, consider it a bonus. The cameras were turned off because they weren't generating the revenue to pay for themselves or that revenue was being directed back to the general fund, not the fund where the cost was originally being incurred. The original fund is always going to come up negative. How can a government not cut a program that costs more than it appears to make, no matter what the benefit.

No matter what, it will always be up for interpretation: is it for money or for safety...

For those who want to insist that the cameras (speed or redlight,) infringe on your rights, relax. You'll always have the right to do what you want and speed or run red lights. Just also know that every action has a possible consequence. Maybe you'll get lucky and never have to pay a dime. Or maybe your luck will run out and you'll be paying a family a dollar a month for the rest of your life just so you don't forget you killed one of their family members.

I'll take my chances on having to pay $75 (or whatever the fine is.)

This article just appeared in Tuesday's Orange County Register
http://tinyurl.com/aehagy

Great articles. It kind of proves that money is the overall driver for the cameras.

...but its still another tax grab around here.

Follow the link……

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=019_1232690422

Then you make the call, Money or Safety.

Joemac

So what ? If every light in the country was equipped with a camera, that would not stop red light running.

SHOW ME THE MONEYYYYY!!! Can you say it louder.lol

We have only had red light cameras for a few months here. I think the city is still doing good on ticketing drivers. I hope that once the revenue drops they will take them out.

Here's what happened in Arizona from our late great governor Janet Napolitano before leaving us. If it's not about money, than what is Janet saying below:

Arizona Speed Cameras Expect $165 Million Annual Revenue
One-tenth of the Arizona state budget deficit will be covered by photo radar profit by 2010. Governor calls for HOV lane cameras.

Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano announced on Friday her expectation that the state's new freeway speed cameras would generate $90 million in net profit for fiscal year 2009, plus $34 million for the private companies selected to operate the program. In the following year, what the state labels "non tax increase revenue generation" will jump to $120 million, plus $45 million more for the ticket vendors, for a total of $165 million. After 2010 revenue is expected to exceed this amount significantly as the program grows beyond 100 fixed and mobile speed cameras and high occupancy vehicle lane (HOV) ticketing cameras are brought online. The state currently faces a $1.3 billion deficit

It may not be bad idea to install money making camera in Somalia, You should expect more than one response from ten citations you sent. They are rich....